Steve_S

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

To Me this all points to the end of the final week. 

Are you speaking of the final battle or this battle being separate, but towards the end of the final week?

Just now, Jostler said:

i guess we should take a look at that   and I said HE reveals....not referring to those who love to put the claim on their business cards

Is there a prophecy you're specifically referring to when you say He will reveal a female apostle?

The Greek word for apostle (transliterated apostolos) is used over 80 times and never never applied to a female to my knowledge, not in the entire new testament.

19 minutes ago, Jostler said:

I  wonder what some will do when He reveals a female apostle?  Better be careful.....that  could get dicey real quick for someone locked in flesh based "theology"

Or perhaps we should be careful to hold the claims of anyone claiming apostolic authority up against the scriptures. Word based is not fleshed based. The bible demonstrates pattern after pattern for multiple things. How many female apostles were there then?

I highly doubt the Magog confederation from Ezekiel 38-39 is the same as is mentioned after the millennium. There are a plethora of reasons I doubt this, but the in the main it can probably be best expressed in the players.

Rev 20:7  Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 
Rev 20:8  and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 
Rev 20:9  They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 
Rev 20:10  The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 

Four corners of the earth. As Dennis said earlier, Gog is probably a title in both passages. Magog may be a title here as well (though I doubt it is in Ezekiel).

Eze 38:2  "Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him, 
Eze 38:3  and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal. 
Eze 38:4  I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and lead you out, with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all splendidly clothed, a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords. 
Eze 38:5  Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet; 
Eze 38:6  Gomer and all its troops; the house of Togarmah from the far north and all its troops—many people are with you.

These are geographically identifiable areas. There are, of course, debates as to the identify of some. But these seem to be players from the mideast, plus possibly Russia. In other words, this is not a worldwide confederation, but a mostly regional confederation led by possibly a singular extra-regional instigator.

The reasons are also different:

Eze 38:10  'Thus says the Lord GOD: "On that day it shall come to pass that thoughts will arise in your mind, and you will make an evil plan: 
Eze 38:11  You will say, 'I will go up against a land of unwalled villages; I will go to a peaceful people, who dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates'— 
Eze 38:12  to take plunder and to take booty, to stretch out your hand against the waste places that are again inhabited, and against a people gathered from the nations, who have acquired livestock and goods, who dwell in the midst of the land. 

The Gog confederation of Ezekiel is basically an attempted larceny writ large. Israel is wealthy and they want it.

Another:

Eze 39:11  "It will come to pass in that day that I will give Gog a burial place there in Israel, the valley of those who pass by east of the sea; and it will obstruct travelers, because there they will bury Gog and all his multitude. Therefore they will call it the Valley of Hamon Gog. 
Eze 39:12  For seven months the house of Israel will be burying them, in order to cleanse the land. 
Eze 39:13  Indeed all the people of the land will be burying, and they will gain renown for it on the day that I am glorified," says the Lord GOD. 

Bodies are being buried for seven months here. That's not what happens to the army that comes against Israel in Revelation, though:

Rev 20:9  They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 

They are likely reduced to dust right there on the spot.

There are many more arguments, of course, and I didn't even mean to make this many (I try not to post walls of text).

Ultimately, the final in Revelation is a rebellion against God that is immediately put down. Shortly thereafter there is judgment and New Jerusalem comes into play.

Ezekiel 38-39 seems to end with God making an example out of the invaders. Fire, hail, brimstone rains on them. They lay dead for seven months before they can all be buried, etc.

There was a woman who judged Israel (was not queen), Deborah. Esther was not a Queen over Israel. She was a queen of Persia and was so chosen after queen Vasthi insulted the then king of Persia Ahasuerus, probably Xerxes. A queen in her situation did not rule as the queen of england does now. Queen was not a hereditary title that implied leadership. The queen in the persian court was basically the most favored wife of the king (he had numerous concubines).

There is, however, a time that a woman did indeed try to claim rule and queenship over Judah after the fashion of kings. Her name was Athaliah. In fact, she attempted to usurp the authority that had been given to the royal line and, indeed, tried to wipe it out. Jehoiada was able to protect one of the King's sons from her attempted purge. I won't recount the rest of the story, but suffice it to say that it did not end pleasantly for her.

7 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

I may add to this thread with quotes from progressive leaders. This movement, which arose out of the emerging church, is a dangerous trend in the church.

The only thing i would disagree with in this statement is calling something such as this "church." It's a perversion of the faith parading as a church.

4 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

What should give someone peace as a Christian regarding this issue is whether God’s will is being done and whether we are seeing a positive change in the church. 

It's not because they are men. It's because the church as a whole is not watching.

Act 20:29  For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 
Act 20:30  Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 
Act 20:31  Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

Quote

Under male leadership we have seen denominations claim apostolic succession and then use that claim to keep people in bondage.

We have seen tens of thousands of boys raped.

For the very most part, if the people, men and women, in those denominations actually opened their bibles occasionally, they would not sit under these people or allow their children anywhere near them. In the case of the catholic church, it's endemic and that church has been apostate for well over a millennium.

Quote

We have seen pastors committing serial adultery and then going to another church to preach.

We’ve seen women counseled not to report domestic violence. 

We’ve seen the prosperity movement.

We’ve seen Trump thank evangelicals for electing him. 

I would point out here, just to show you that this has nothing to do with being a man (or rather, nothing to do with *just* men), Donald Trumps top "spiritual adviser," Paula White, is a prosperity gospel preacher (point 3 of yours in this quote) and who had an extramarital affair, left her husband, and kept her church and ministry (point 1 above on both counts). You see, it wouldn't matter if you replaced every single man in a position of authority with a woman who is in a position of authority, it would still happen, because they are human.

Quote

I think we should be concerned about what male pastors are doing and not progressives.

I think it is quite possible to be well concerned about both. Male pastors who are progressives are responsible for some of the worst and most false Christian doctrines that have ever been concocted.

3 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

What that verse tells me is that he was being honest that not every word he said was a commandment from God, but from his own wisdom. 

I need to study out the verses where Paul says “he” is not permitting a woman to teach a man and then give my opinion. 

I'd have to disagree there, simply because that's not what he says. He says that on that specific thing he is speaking authoritatively, but of himself. What most people don't realize is that's the verse that allows people to divorces unbelieving spouses that abandon them.

1Co 7:10  Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 
1Co 7:11  But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. 
1Co 7:12  But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 
1Co 7:13  And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 
1Co 7:14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 
1Co 7:15  But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 
1Co 7:16  For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

Now let me ask a question? Why on earth, regarding what this verse is actually speaking towards, does nobody ever say - "No! That was just Paul's opinion, if that unbelieving spouse of yours leaves, you had better just wait, even if it's the rest of your life, on them to return!!!!!!!"... You see, this is something most people like the idea of. If it turns out their spouse is not saved and they leave, they are free, according to Paul's command here. Nobody wants to ever, ever, call that into question - "Well, that was just his opinion! He's just saying stuff, whatever is on his mind randomly in that moment!" No, what ends up happening is folks like Paul's opinion on this, so they never question it.  Jesus spoke of marriage and the only legal thing He said one could dissolve a marriage over was if your spouse cheated. Paul is saying here, that in his judgment as an apostle, a chosen apostle of the living God, that if your wife or husband doesn't believe, but also doesn't abandon you and remains faithful, then you have a duty to demonstrate the love of Christ to them and maybe through that demonstration, they will come to knowledge of and faith in Christ. But if they leave you, if they don't like that you're now a follower of Jesus, don't like that you won't do some of the things you were willing to do before, don't want to deal with you being saved, and they leave, you are free. He's saying, even though God did not say this, even though he cannot point to Christ speaking this specific thing, you are free from the bonds of marriage in that one specific case, even though Jesus did not specifically mention it in His exposition on marriage in the gospels.

The entirety of this chapter, where he invokes this, is on marriage. People were obviously worried about it and did not have a firm grasp of what they needed to do. Virtually every believer who was married then had an unbelieving spouse. He was giving them theological doctrine on how to deal with it.

Now, I will not say that I don't understand why folks take this, which they never invoke on the actual topic, and carry it over to an entirely different letter to Timothy with regards to teaching authority. They do it because it's the only leg to stand on to wedge female pastors/teachers into the scriptures. I would have no problem with women being pastors if someone could only show me specifically why I should not believe what the bible actually says about it. The real problem though, is if you start saying anything Paul said was just his opinion, which is required if you are going to apply 1 Corinthians 7 to 1 Timothy and Titus indiscriminately, then you are tossing out half of the new testament as just the theological opinion of a former pharisee with no inspiration. Either it was inspired or it was not. It cannot be "it was inspired on the things that we like and it was his opinion on the things we don't." And that, right there, is my main problem with the whole thing.

2 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

Unfortunately, I think it’s a lot like politics, it’s regional. In more progressive states, you will see the idea of female pastors as something positive. In more conservative states, it’s the opposite. That shouldn’t be a surprise. 

Modern Progressivism is one of the most anti-God forms of political thought that the western world has ever seen. It basically openly celebrates a plethora of things that God hates. Knowing that progressive states are the ones more accepting and promoting of such a thing would not give me peace as a Christian on something doctrinal such as this.

1 minute ago, ReneeIW said:

I don’t think it’s dangerous at all because Paul has said in other places that he is giving his advice that was not necessarily a word from God. 

I trust God to preserve His Word. 

This is in one chapter, 1 Corinthians 7. This is also Paul speaking with apostolic authority. This is not the opinion of some guy on the street, or even a pastor. This is an ordinance that a chosen apostle of Christ instituted. However, this thread is not regarding 1 Corinthians 7.

What I would specifically point out is that in that specific case Paul noted that it was from him specifically. What that should tell anyone is that when that is the case he will tell us. He does not tell us that here.

I take it quite literally. Adam is listed in the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Luke 3. Kind of doesn't make sense that a poetic narrative could be listed as a physical antecedent of Jesus the Messiah, God among us. I could list all the times that Adam (and Eve for that matter) are mentioned as being literal people throughout both the old and new testament, but I don't figure that is necessary.

23 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

The verses you quoted have always confused me, especially verse 15 about childbearing saving women. Because of verse 15, I tend to think he was speaking on his own accord and not giving a command from God. Yes, he was spirit-filled and a chosen apostle, but he was till speaking to those people in those times and my understanding was that he believed Christ was coming back in his lifetime. So everything was not revealed to him.

Firstly, I'd ask why that makes you believe it was just his opinion?

Secondly, Christ said that no man knows the day or hour of His return. That is a highly special case. Paul, or any other apostle or any other Christian, expressing hope that Christ's return is near or even feeling as if it is, is not a lack of insight on their part. We are told specifically that this time will be at the Father's choosing. I am positive Paul of all people would have understood that.

Topics like this are always difficult because they involve things that people want. These aren't abstract concepts. They involves opinions and desires of individuals that have a direct bearing on them today. The problem, though, is that I have never seen anyone make a good argument that was based on the scriptures themselves that this is just some random opinion of Paul that he decided to insert into the God-breathed scriptures of his own accord, because that is what it would require for me to believe that. That is the sort of thing that could end up calling into question the legitimacy of a lot more than this single verse and that is why it is so incredibly dangerous to entertain it.

2 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

As far as denominations go, where I live its Methodists, Nazarenes, and Non-Denominational. I actually remember one of Trump's  former advisors being a female Baptist minister.

So you meant where you live the question is settled or nationally?

Praying.

8 hours ago, Revlori said:

Please take time to read this article again. Thank you & God bless

I did take the time to read most of it at least and it's the same old recycled arguments. This man, simply put, is wrong. He starts with a description of Eisegesis and Exegesis and then immediately and unremittingly engages in eisegesis. It's unfortunate. Simply put, his argument is absurd. He has a lot of titles, but that means virtually nothing. It would be simple to produce 15 counter-examples with guys with the same titles.

3 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

He was speaking to that culture. And if that were meant for everyone, it would have come out of Christ's mouth. Yes, it's all God's Word, but Paul said things that were suggestions for that culture. Everything else that Paul said was an explanation of things that had already been said by Christ.

1Ti 2:12  And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 
1Ti 2:13  For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 
1Ti 2:14  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 
1Ti 2:15  Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. 

I have an impossible time accepting that this is a cultural designation. He goes all the way back to creation with his appeal to why - Adam and Eve. If it is cultural then the obvious conclusion to draw is that the only single culture in which the relationship between Adam and Eve is relevant is the one in which Timothy was preaching when Paul sent him this letter.

People may say this is an opinion of paul and that's a fair thing to say, but even if that is the case, this is the "opinion" of a spirit filled chosen apostle of the living God (though I think it is more than just an opinion). One would do very well to follow the advice of such a man, wouldn't you think?

3 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

In any case, we already have female pastors, so not sure what the point of the argument is. The church has already decided that these verses were not meant for every culture. 

I have to say, the verses mean what they mean, regardless of what the church thinks they mean. Apart from that, though, you say the "church" has already decided that these verses were not meant for every culture. I've noticed you've said this more than once.

Could you please give me a short list of the major denominations that comprise this church that has made the above decision you reference?

Praying.

Any further personal attacks in this thread will result in those responsible being removed.

4 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

Do you know why they believe Moses and Abraham existed and were prophets? They don’t deny these men spoke for God or am I wrong? Where did they get this information? Did Mohammed say it was revealed to him by Gabriel?

They only believe what Mohammed said regarding Abraham and Moses. In other words, the version of Moses they believe is the one present in the Koran, not the Torah (Moses is the most mentioned person in the Koran apparently). In other words, Moses was targeted highly by the Koran, mostly to revise what had actually happened.

They do not deny that these men spoke for God, but the version they present of these men is not the version that the actual scriptures present, it's the perverted versions that the Koran presents.

8 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

I understand they have been led astray and they don’t believe what we believe about the OT and NT, but they believe the OT prophets  existed and spoke for God, and that Christ existed and spoke for God?

They believe a *version* of them that existed and spoke from God. This cannot be emphasized enough. They have a false understanding of the prophets because the version of the prophets they are presented with is from the Koran, not the bible.

They also have a false Christ. Their Jesus cannot be the Son of God because their book says God has no Son. Jesus was explicit that there would be false Christs. The Christ that the Koran presents is a false Christ, not the real Jesus. That also must be emphasized.

Jesus claimed to be God. To the Islamic mind, Jesus would've never claimed to be God, because it's not possible that Jesus was God - and Jesus was a prophet who would not lie. So in their mind, that (and other claims made about Jesus both by the writers of the gospels and by Jesus himself) was made up, thus making the gospels entirely untrustworthy. The only version of Jesus they trust comes from the Koran as a result - never the actual gospels themselves.

10 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

 I agree. But do they believe they are worshipping the God of Abraham?

They believe they are worshiping the the version of god that the version of Abraham the Koran presents worshiped. Again, and I cannot emphasize this enough, when you or I say God or even Abraham, we mean something different than a Muslim. Their beliefs are based on what is presented in the Koran. The Koran basically rewrites the Torah.

12 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

So, for example, Hindus have no problem saying they don’t worship the God of Abraham, but would Muslims say this about themselves?

They would say they worship the God of Abraham, yes, but they would mean they worship the Koranic version of god that the Koranic version of Abraham worshiped.

These differences seem semantic, but they are not. It's important to understand that all of their ideas of these people only come from their writings - mostly the Koran, but also probably the Hadith to a degree. They do not read the Torah as a companion to the Koran. They do not read the gospels to see what Jesus said. Their entire idea of all Abraham, Moses, the prophets, Jesus, all of them, only comes from their texts - never from the actual texts. They avoid the actual texts, probably because there are truths there that would destroy their belief in their false religion.

1 minute ago, ReneeIW said:

I don’t think I was articulating my point well. I think I was trying to say that the root of their faith starts with Moses, because if they believe God gave the Torah to Moses, that obviously occurred before Mohammad came unto the scene. But what you are saying is correct. Their faith starts with Mohammed(however you spell his name) but they accept that prophesy started before him. 

It's transliterated in English, so that name is spelled 50 different ways and I probably spell it differently every time, lol, not even on purpose.

3 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

I was just trying to explain that if they believe prophecy started with Moses, they must have some belief in  the God of Moses or why else would they accept the Torah as inspired?

They believe a false narrative of God and Christ would probably be the best way to put it, but I don't believe they are worshiping God in any capacity. They don't actually accept the Torah as inspired. They believe the Torah was corrupted (I don't even think they would call it the Torah). They think any text kept by Jews or Christians has been entirely polluted, which is pretty absurd when you look at some of the textual agreements, particularly when the dead sea scrolls are brought into play with a book like Isaiah, of which there was a complete copy found that was shown to have went virtually unchanged through multiple copies over the course of seven or eight centuries.

They have basically been led into idolatry by a false prophet. Their idea of who God is is not who God has revealed Himself to be in any capacity. As such, they are not worshiping God. They are worshiping their prophets idea of a god.

2 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

Yes, They believe Muhammad is Supreme and that all prophecy ENDS with Muhammad, not begins.

They also believe in the second coming, but do not believe Christ is God.

They absolutely believe God gave the Torah to Moses. You may want to research that. Obviously they interpret the Torah differently because they are not God’s people.

I didn't intimate that they believe that prophecy begins with Mohammad. I said that their *faith* starts with mohammad, which was a response to you saying their faith starts with believing that Allah is the God of the old testament. That is not where their faith begins. Their faith begins with Mohammad's teachings, nowhere else. They believe what he said, above all others. They are not taught about Moses through any interpretive lens that is not Koranic. That's my ultimate point.

Just now, ReneeIW said:

Never ever said it had anything to do with Muslims. You made a blanket statement that Christ is God  has been revealed to “everyone” in the world. 

I said he revealed Himself to everyone in the world, and He did. The jews were given a spirit of stupor because of their disobedience. The idea that God will ultimately give people over to their sin consistent throughout the scriptures in the old and new testament. Pharaoh is an example of this. He hardened his heart through the first two plagues. In other words, he declared, through his actions, that he is against God. After that (except for once I believe), it was God who hardened pharaoh's heart.

When I said that Jesus has revealed to all that He is God, I meant that He has done so through His word. It is no secret that Jesus is God and Jesus made it no secret in the scriptures. The lack of acceptance of such is an individual responsibility. It's not corporate.

1 minute ago, ReneeIW said:

I think you may be arguing a different point. I’m not sure what this is directed at. Obviously Christianity and Islam are different. The original post seemed to be asking if Muslims believe that “Allah” is the God of the Old Testament. That is what Muslims believe.  Their faith starts there. so does the Mormon faith and JWs.

Joseph Smith is a false prophet, but my understanding is that most Mormons believe the OT was inspired. So they believe they are worshipping the same God as us, but they believe we are lost because we don’t except Joseph Smith. That is the same with Muslims. Maybe we are talking about two different things. 

 

I would argue that Muslim faith does not start at the God of the old testament, but at Muhammad. They believe that Muhammad is the prophet and what he said is supreme. The only things they consider outside of his specific writings are the Haditha, which are basically said to be records of his exposition of his specific writings and daily practices for muslims according to him. They give no credence to the Torah. They think the promises were through Ishmael, not Isaac, for instance. Muhammad is a false prophet and their religion is a prophet-based religion above all else, therefore their religion is entirely false.

2 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

Romans 11: 8 as it is written, 

“God gave them a spirit of stupor, 

eyes that would not see 

and ears that would not hear, 

down to this very day.” 

 

Romans 11 is probably the biggest singular new testament exposition on the disposition of God's people, Israel. The above quoted verse has absolutely nothing to do with muslims. It's speaking of Jews:

Rom 11:6  And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. 
Rom 11:7  What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 

Rom 11:8  Just as it is written: "GOD HAS GIVEN THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES THAT THEY SHOULD NOT SEE AND EARS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HEAR, TO THIS VERY DAY."

9 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

This is an interesting topic because they(Muslims, not terrorists or jihadists) believe:

1. in one God and that He is the God of Abraham, Issac and Moses.

2. They believe the Torah was inspired and given to the Jews.

3. They believe Christ is still to come.

It has not been revealed to them that Christ is God and not just a prophet.

I would have to strongly disagree with this. It has been revealed to them and everyone else in the world that Christ is God and not a simple prophet, by Christ Himself. Muslims, even nice, well centered, moral, non-jihadist muslims, needs Jesus just like everyone else does. Their false beliefs about Jesus are just as lethal to them from a spiritual perspective as the belief of anyone else who rejects Christ.

In short, they are believing lies told them by a false prophet. The fact that there are tidbits of truth mixed in is part and parcel. Virtually every false prophet who has ever existed mixes kernels of truth with falsehoods, some more, some less. In Mohammad's case, it's a whole lot of falsehood and very little truth.